盖茨夫妇寄语2020届毕业生：世界在你们引领下将变得更美好

按：

毕业典礼是一种标志社会状态变化的过渡性仪式，因此也迫使人们思考他们希望传递给下一代怎样的价值观。2020年，全球肆虐的新冠肺炎病毒，对人类的生存及发展带来严峻挑战，也对毕业生们从学校到社会的人生旅程造成巨大影响。受《华尔街日报》邀请，盖茨夫妇撰文鼓励2020届毕业生乐观面对并送上祝福，“无论当下或未来，你们都将有所建树。有你们的引领，世界会变得更加美好。”

---

盖兹夫妇寄语高校新科毕业生

绝大多数的毕业演讲不会改变历史进程。但是，在1947年一个阳光明媚的下午，时任美国国务卿乔治·马歇尔（George C. Marshall）的演讲改变了历史。

这位曾经的将军在哈佛大学演讲时提醒大家，距离其数千英里之外，第二次世界大战的余波正使欧洲陷入贫困、饥饿与绝望。他解释道，尽管“与这个地球上的动荡地区相距遥远”，但美国人民有责任援助欧洲。即使你从未听过这段演讲，你也可能熟悉其倡导的政策议程——马歇尔计划。该计划帮助西欧各国加速战后重建，从而开创了和平与繁荣的新时代。

1947年时任美国国务卿的乔治·马歇尔

与当时一样，今天的世界正经受着巨大苦难和经济损失。各国需要再次团结一致投入重建。不过这一次，对于2020届毕业生而言，你们无需一位演讲者来描绘“这个地球上的动荡地区”。今天我们所面临的新冠疫情不再是地域性的，而是一个真正的全球危机。

在这个世界上，人与人之间有着千丝万缕的联系，你们这代人比以往所有人都对此有着更深的理解。你们中很多人从识字起就会登录互联网。在成长过程中，你们可以接触到千里以外的流行文化、资讯和观点。而那些影响你们未来的重大挑战，疾病暴发、气候变化、性别不平等以及贫困，也同样影响着你们在世界各个角落的同龄人。

那么，这一切对你们人生的下一阶段意味着什么呢？作为国际社会的一员，你的行动将会对世界产生影响。无论你是谁，身在何处，职业目标是什么，总是存在一些或大或小的方式，让你参与到让世界变好的行动之中。

如果这次危机激励你投身公共服务事业，那简直太棒了，但这并非唯一的贡献方式。你可以随时通过自己的呼吁和选票来推动变革。你可以坚定地支持那些有助于为每个地方的每个人创造更健康、更美好未来的政策，无论他们住在你家附近，还是地球的另一端。

没错，你们在一个艰难时刻进入自己人生的新阶段。对于你们中的很多人来说，毕业后的道路突然变得更为曲折。有很多事需要担心，从自己到家人的健康，再到就业市场对你偿贷能力的影响，你可能暂时无暇顾及如何让世界变得更好的大问题，这是可以理解的。

但是，毫无疑问，无论是当下还是未来，你们都能有所建树。你们继承的这个世界，早已证明进步是切实可行的：这是一个在战后得到重建的世界，一个战胜了天花的世界，一个养活不断增长人口的世界，一个让超过10亿人摆脱极端贫困的世界。

全球天花根除认证委员会委员们于1979年12月9日在日内瓦签署认证书

图源：世界卫生组织

这样的进步不是偶然发生，也并非命中注定。这是所有像你们一样的人共同担当和为之奋斗的结果，无论他们的生活与工作如何，他们都将为推动我们前进的共同使命做出贡献。2020届的毕业生们，这是一个艰难的时代，但我们会渡过难关。在你们领导下，世界将比以往更加强大。

美国大学毕业演讲的变迁——从马歇尔致辞谈起

作者：吉莲•邰蒂（Gillian Tett）

金融时报美国主编和自由撰稿人

七十多年前，时任美国国务卿的乔治•马歇尔（George Marshall）在哈佛大学的毕业典礼上致辞。当时（1947年），马歇尔并未感到有必要去迎合那些年轻的听众；他没有分享自己的人生趣事或是给出职业建议，而是高屋建瓴地呼吁美国人民去拯救战后满目疮痍的欧洲大陆。

马歇尔严肃地告诉台下的学生们：“事实上，欧洲在未来三到四年间需要外国（主要是美国）提供的食品以及其他重要物资，远远超过了欧洲目前的支付能力，因此欧洲必须得到大量额外援助。”这是他首次阐述所谓 “马歇尔计划”的政策纲要。他说：“解决问题的关键在于打破当前的恶性循环，并让欧洲民众重拾信心。”

如今时代是多么不同啊。在一年中的这个时候，美国各地的数百所大学以及其他教育机构正在举行自己的毕业典礼。和马歇尔时代一样，这些也都是都是庄严而重要的活动。意料之中的是，在当代的美国社会，毕业典礼已近乎成为一种类似“成年礼”的仪式。人类学家或许会说，毕业典礼是一种标志社会状态变化的过渡性仪式，因此也迫使人们思考他们希望传递给下一代怎样的价值观。

但假如马歇尔能够听到今年的这批毕业致辞——或者说是俗世“布道”——他或许会深感震惊。且不论现代礼仪要求如今的毕业致辞短小精炼（时长通常仅为12到15分钟）这一事实，也忽略现在的毕业致辞专门针对学生、而非面向社会整体这一点。真正让人感到震惊的是，如今在毕业典礼上布道的名人已不再局限于资深政治家、法官以及宗教领袖。

相反，作家、商界领袖、运动员、电视名人、演艺界人士以及科学家如今成为毕业致辞者的主流。今年（2013年）的毕业生们聆听了以下名人的致辞：奥普拉•温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey，脱口秀主持人）、金墉（Jim Yong Kim，世界银行行长）、朱莉•安德鲁斯（Julie Andrews，演员）、安妮•伦诺克斯（Annie Lennox，歌手）、奈尔•德格拉斯•泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson，天文物理学家）、阿里安娜•赫芬顿（Arianna Huffington，新闻工作者）以及雪莉•麦科伊（Sheri McCoy，雅芳首席执行官）。的确，在致辞者中也有一些政治家和高级政府官员：巴拉克•奥巴马（Barack Obama）、科瑞•布克（Cory Booker）、柯尔斯顿•吉利布兰德（Kirsten Gillibrand）以及迈克尔•布隆伯格（Michael Bloomberg）也在今年的毕业典礼上发表了演讲。但我仔细研读数据后发现，政治家的数量远远少于文化评论家。

除此之外还有一大转变，即“自我”元素的兴起。五六十年前，政治家们通常不会在公众场合谈论自己的事情。他们倾向于将注意力集中在崇高的政策理念上。如今一些政治家仍在谈论政治，但绝大多数人已经不再这么做。如今最主流的演讲模式是，演讲者讲述他们自己的心路历程以及个人奋斗史。

已经去世的苹果公司创始人史蒂夫•乔布斯（Steve Jobs）在2005年时就极为高明地运用了这一模式，当时他与斯坦福大学的学生分享了癌症、职业转变以及婚姻改变人生的经历。乔布斯建议道：“你的时间是有限的，所以不要浪费时间过别人过的生活。”但无数演员、作家以及其他致辞者也运用了同样的演讲模式。今年Twitter的首席执行官迪克•科斯托洛（Dick Costolo）在密歇根大学的毕业典礼上对同学们讲述，他在职业道路上的挫折如何使他变得更富创造力，并使他相信“你无法预制人生的剧本”，而应当“活在当下”。换句话说，个人的自助哲学取代了拯救欧洲的高层政策方案。

我敢说，英国《金融时报》的部分读者对此会感到有些震惊。毕竟演讲主题的转变所部分反映出的事实是，我们生活在一个更加个人主义、更注重娱乐、消费者导向性更明显的时代，学生们希望获得像切得大小适合入口的食物那样立等可用的建议，并配以一点情感元素以抓住他们的注意力。但也有人对此作出更加乐观的解读：这种转变还反映出了一个更加包容、更加平等主义的时代氛围。六十年前，像马歇尔这样的政治家所生活的圈子，距离绝大多数人的生活很遥远。而现在，政治家、公共知识分子、演艺界人士以及商界领袖之间的界限正变得模糊。如今的政治家可能要被迫谈论自己的“私人生活”，但演员、歌手以及脱口秀主持人也要被迫就“公共”事务以及公民问题表明立场——不论是在毕业致辞时还是在任何其他场合上。

当然，有没有毕业生真能把演讲者们的任何建议听进去是一个有待商榷的问题，听过之后还能记得住的人更是少之又少。绝大多数毕业生在走进礼堂的那一刻通常都是稀里糊涂并且感到如释重负，他们的父母更是加倍如此。但或许所有这些演讲（也是布道）的真正价值在于，他们共同构成了一类非同寻常的文体，未来的历史学家能够借此研究二十世界和二十一世纪的美国领袖们希望展示出怎样的自我形象。就此来说，毕业致辞是一项非常可贵的传统。即便在一个许多毕业生觉得一个13分钟的演讲似乎也为时过长的时代里也是如此，或者说尤为如此。

附：乔治·马歇尔哈佛演讲稿（原文）

马歇尔演讲现场，图源：哈佛大学公报

Delivered 5 June 1947 at Harvard University

This transcription of the Marshall Plan Speech is taken from a recorded tape in the Foundation’s archives. The principal differences between this transcription and the version distributed to the press by the State Department are the opening and the closing paragraphs which Marshall added while delivering his address.

Mr. President, Dr. Conant, members of the board of overseers, ladies and gentlemen, I’m profoundly grateful and touched by the distinction and honor and great compliment accorded me by the authorities of Harvard this morning. I’m overwhelmed, as a matter of fact, and I’m rather fearful of my inability to maintain such a high rating as you’ve been generous enough to accord to me. In these historic and lovely surroundings, this perfect day, and this very wonderful assembly, it is a tremendously impressive thing to an individual in my position.

I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious. That must be apparent to all intelligent people. I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. Furthermore, the people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reactions of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world.

In considering the requirements for the rehabilitation of Europe the physical loss of life, the visible destruction of cities, factories, mines and railroads was correctly estimated, but it has become obvious during recent months that this visible destruction was probably less serious than the dislocation of the entire fabric of European economy. For the past ten years conditions have been highly abnormal. The feverish preparation for war and the more feverish maintenance of the war effort engulfed all aspects of national economies. Machinery has fallen into disrepair or is entirely obsolete. Under the arbitrary and destructive Nazi rule, virtually every possible enterprise was geared into the German war machine. Long-standing commercial ties, private institutions, banks, insurance companies and shipping companies disappeared, through loss of capital, absorption through nationalization or by simple destruction. In many countries, confidence in the local currency has been severely shaken. The breakdown of the business structure of Europe during the war was complete. Recovery has been seriously retarded by the fact that two years after the close of hostilities a peace settlement with Germany and Austria has not been agreed upon. But even given a more prompt solution of these difficult problems, the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.

There is a phase of this matter which is both interesting and serious. The farmer has always produced the foodstuffs to exchange with the city dweller for the other necessities of life. This division of labor is the basis of modern civilization. At the present time it is threatened with breakdown. The town and city industries are not producing adequate goods to exchange with the food-producing farmer. Raw materials and fuel are in short supply. Machinery is lacking or worn out. The farmer of the peasant cannot find the goods for sale which he desires to purchase. So the sale of his farm produce for money which he cannot use seems to him an unprofitable transaction. He, therefore, has withdrawn many fields from crop cultivation and is using them for grazing. He feeds more grain to stock and finds for himself and his family an ample supply of food, however short he may be on clothing and the other ordinary gadgets of civilization. Meanwhile people in the cities are short of food and fuel. So the governments are forced to use their foreign money and credits to procure these necessities abroad. This process exhausts funds which are urgently needed for reconstruction. This a very serious situation is rapidly developing which bodes no good for the world. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down.

The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social and political deterioration of a very grave character.

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question.

Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piece-meal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative. Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

It is already evident that, before the United States Government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government. It would be neither fitting nor efficacious for this Government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Europe on its feet economically. This is the business of the Europeans. The initiative, I think, must come from Europe. The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a European program and of later support of such a program so far as it may be practical for us to do so. The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all European nations.

An essential part of any successful action on the part of the United States is an understanding on the part of the people of America of the character of the problem and the remedies to be applied. Political passion and prejudice should have no part. With foresight, and a willingness on the part of our people to face up to the vast responsibility which history has clearly placed upon our country, the difficulties I have outlined can and will be overcome.

I am sorry that on occasion I have said something publicly in regard to our international situation; I’ve been forced by the necessities of the case to enter into rather technical discussions. But to my mind, it is of vast importance that our people reach some general understanding of what the complications really are, rather than react from a passion or a prejudice or an emotion of the moment. As I said more formally a moment ago, we are remote from the scene of these troubles. It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening, or even seeing photographs or motion pictures, to grasp at all the real significance of the situation. And yet the whole world of the future hangs on a proper judgment. It hangs, I think, to a large extent on the realization of the American people, of just what are the various dominant factors. What are the reactions of the people? What are the justifications of those reactions? What are the sufferings? What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Thank you very much.

参考资料：

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-better-world-that-you-will-build-11588256730

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4-Bw-D5Ui_fr2KBT51M3Og

https://www.marshallfoundation.org/marshall/the-marshall-plan/marshall-plan-speech/

https://www.ft.com/content/2d79860e-c8bd-11e2-acc6-00144feab7de

相关资料：

---

本号综合自：华尔街日报/盖兹基金会/马歇尔基金会/金融时报。本文版权归属作者/原载媒体所有。

---

---

喜欢本文？欢迎关注/置顶/点赞/加入留学家长公益交流社群：